NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to say stop the violece with kids and weapons we need strong governments.

k.

nobel sentiment, undoubtably shared by others.... but do you have a proposal to go with that?

erm... methinks thou doth explain too little...

methinks also thou doth need to clarify whether "the violence with kids and weapons" is supposed to be all one thought considering thy utter lack of thought-separating tactics such as punctuation and/or line-breaks (please correct my terminology if I used the wrong word for the concept of having a blank line between lines of horizontal text)

I would like to say stop the violece with kids and weapons we need strong governments.
Why are you telling the weopens that we need stong government? and what have you got against children playing their violece Music on their violas?

Lost in translation im guessing.

VL.

The weapon's industry is very profitable toward my country as it is many of your's... why would you support something if your crime is under control? It's only effects would be subjecting the world's people to the same laws that you follow however in places and situations where it is not beneficial.

Hello? You can not be that uneducated can you? You can not lack that much commensense can you?

Violence by children is not the responsibilty of a nations government. Violence by children is the responsibilty of the Parents, and the Teachers alone. Parents and Teachers are the instrumental factors in teaching children respect, lessons in life, etc. The only time when the government must and has the right to step forward and take any action is when the Parents and Teachers are not fulfilling their obligations to their children.

Weapons are NOT violent! Weapons do NOT kill people. To think different is to show your lack of education, and to show a complete lack of commensense. No weapon has ever sprouted legs, walked up to someone and pulled it's own trigger, killing that person. Ever.
So, weapons are not the problem are they? No. the problem is the people who have no respect for the law. As such there needs to be some kind of restrictions on criminals owning weapons.

But how far do you go? Do you go so far as to demand and pass laws that require everyone attempting to buy a weapon submit to a background check and fingerprint check? That is one possible solution. But if you follow that road, then eventually the only people with guns will be the criminals themselves.

I propose a simpler solution. One that will keep the peoples right to bear arms intact, and will bring crimes involving firearms down. Criminals who have committed mass murders with a weapon, then, that criminal, is put in a maximum security prison labor camp for life. Those who commit armed robbery resulting in a death are sent to a maximum security labor camp. However, any and all citizens are encouraged to purchase and own at least one firearm. Crime rates will plummit to almost no existance.

Ok, we get the tirade, but there are a few things I'd like to point out here.


Hello? You can not be that uneducated can you? You can not lack that much commensense can you?

Violence by children is not the responsibilty of a nations government. Violence by children is the responsibilty of the Parents, and the Teachers alone. Parents and Teachers are the instrumental factors in teaching children respect, lessons in life, etc. The only time when the government must and has the right to step forward and take any action is when the Parents and Teachers are not fulfilling their obligations to their children.

I think we all agree that parents have the obligation to teach children not to commit violent acts. The point here would not be to shift this job to the government. If this proposal is to be about what you have suggested it will be about, it would be dealing specifically with the situation in which parents have failed to instill in their children that violence is wrong. You'll notice this happens to be the exact situation under which you, yourself, have stated the government "must" take action.


Weapons are NOT violent! Weapons do NOT kill people. To think different is to show your lack of education, and to show a complete lack of commensense. No weapon has ever sprouted legs, walked up to someone and pulled it's own trigger, killing that person. Ever.

Here I would like to point out that guns are not the only weapons to which this thread refers. I know, you used the word "weapon" in your post, but it is quite obvious from this section, as well as the rest of your post, that guns are the only weapon about which you appear to be concerned. Guns are not the only weapons in existance, and therefore not the only problem being discussed here.


So, weapons are not the problem are they? No. the problem is the people who have no respect for the law. As such there needs to be some kind of restrictions on criminals owning weapons.

Is it just me, or does it sound like you're building up to something irrelevant to the thread here?


But how far do you go? Do you go so far as to demand and pass laws that require everyone attempting to buy a weapon submit to a background check and fingerprint check? That is one possible solution. But if you follow that road, then eventually the only people with guns will be the criminals themselves.

This is beginning to have a familiar ring to it, although I can't quite place it...

*cough*NRA motto*cough*


I propose a simpler solution. One that will keep the peoples right to bear arms intact, and will bring crimes involving firearms down. Criminals who have committed mass murders with a weapon, then, that criminal, is put in a maximum security prison labor camp for life. Those who commit armed robbery resulting in a death are sent to a maximum security labor camp. However, any and all citizens are encouraged to purchase and own at least one firearm. Crime rates will plummit to almost no existance.

And at last you reveal your true colors. First, I'd like to say that your idea of "prison labor camp" is not only illegal considering its fairly obvious violation of the NSUN's anti-slavery laws, but it is also highly offensive due to its parallels to the treatment of certain individuals during the second world war. Second, as Libertarian as I am, I cannot allow myself to not come down heavily on you for posting this here. My reason? You're peddling your own proposal idea within someone else's proposal thread. Not only that, but your proposal most likely isn't even relevant to theirs. If you want to promote your idea, that's fine, but START YOUR OWN THREAD. Don't hijack someone else's.

nobel sentiment, undoubtably shared by others.... but do you have a proposal to go with that?
as of a matter fact i do have a proposal for it i need endorsements so please help and try not to criticize it thank you.

ok since we all agree that it is not the kids who are commiting the crime it is the teachers and parents who are influenzing them so lets do something about it and not think about it macke an act upon it and make a difference yeah this might just be a game but still it is happening in the worl today so lets make an example here and wor it out.

The weapon's industry is very profitable toward my country as it is many of your's... why would you support something if your crime is under control? It's only effects would be subjecting the world's people to the same laws that you follow however in places and situations where it is not beneficial.
i am not doing it for my nation i am doing it for everone it effects everyone if it is passed there are people whoo need it so lets make it work and tell me whats so wrong with it.

as of a matter fact i do have a proposal for it i need endorsements so please help and try not to criticize it thank you.

Could you post a copy of the proposal?

i see the poll up the top and i see the option:

Out law crime creating movies and people and make good examples.

you have already lost my support with that option because it makes you out to be a jack thompson-barnaby joyce type which says movies and video games are bad for kids because they cause violence.

i see the poll up the top and i see the option:

Out law crime creating movies and people and make good examples.

you have already lost my support with that option because it makes you out to be a jack thompson-barnaby joyce type which says movies and video games are bad for kids because they cause violence.
no i picked that option to keep people interested on bith sides i am definitely for video games and great movies but what the world lacks is parental support the parents need to also play the games and watch the movies and see what your child is getting in to so they are updated but the parents influence their kids to committ crimes by doing them where kids are seeing them the kids know that people committ crimes and they know some of them get away with it and they will so so lets stop it i dont want to rid games and movies just the influence.

Could you post a copy of the proposal?
why are you for it.

Ok, we get the tirade, but there are a few things I'd like to point out here.



I think we all agree that parents have the obligation to teach children not to commit violent acts. The point here would not be to shift this job to the government. If this proposal is to be about what you have suggested it will be about, it would be dealing specifically with the situation in which parents have failed to instill in their children that violence is wrong. You'll notice this happens to be the exact situation under which you, yourself, have stated the government "must" take action.



Here I would like to point out that guns are not the only weapons to which this thread refers. I know, you used the word "weapon" in your post, but it is quite obvious from this section, as well as the rest of your post, that guns are the only weapon about which you appear to be concerned. Guns are not the only weapons in existance, and therefore not the only problem being discussed here.



Is it just me, or does it sound like you're building up to something irrelevant to the thread here?



This is beginning to have a familiar ring to it, although I can't quite place it...

*cough*NRA motto*cough*



And at last you reveal your true colors. First, I'd like to say that your idea of "prison labor camp" is not only illegal considering its fairly obvious violation of the NSUN's anti-slavery laws, but it is also highly offensive due to its parallels to the treatment of certain individuals during the second world war. Second, as Libertarian as I am, I cannot allow myself to not come down heavily on you for posting this here. My reason? You're peddling your own proposal idea within someone else's proposal thread. Not only that, but your proposal most likely isn't even relevant to theirs. If you want to promote your idea, that's fine, but START YOUR OWN THREAD. Don't hijack someone else's.
I would have to concur with him yes putting them into labor camps is bad and a bad example of how life should not be treated lets not punish them further but make examples of the next offenders of any crime with a second degree of each crime

I would have to concur with him yes putting them into labor camps is bad and a bad example of how life should not be treated lets not punish them further but make examples of the next offenders of any crime with a second degree of each crime
i say we put our heads together and make a relevant proposal ourselves it might seem weird but it is possible and just telegram me and we will chat ok . Thank you

why are you for it.

Until I see it, how can I know if I am for or against it?

*In an unprecidented fit of rage, Madame President's wings burst out of her back, spreading themselves so wide they block the sun, her eyes glow fiercely, and blue flame envelops her tightly clenched fists.** Why does everyone always assume I'm bloody MALE??? *As she shouts this last word, her unchecked fury causes the flame around her hands to suddenly explode forth from her fists, instantly burning everything around her and reducing it to smoldering ashes. Having thus 'vented' her anger, Madame calms herself down and goes about restoring what she so fully destroyed. The flame disappears from her hands, her eyes cease glowing, and her wings return into her back, making her once again appear at least somewhat normal.* I wish to apologize for that little display of mine. I know you didn't mean any harm, it's just that I've been getting called "Sir" through telegrams and being refered to as a man since I first joined the UN and became a Delegate. I'm rather tired of it.

That being said, I would appreciate if you would use proper grammar and punctuation when you speak. I am having a very hard time understanding what you're saying. In addition to that, I'm not exactly sure what the choices of your poll are supposed to mean. Would you care to clarify them for me? Plus, if you expect to gain the support of us Delegates, you really ought to give us some sort of starting draft of your proposal here in the thread about your proposal. Otherwise, you may find that not many people are taking you seriously due to the appearance that you, yourself, aren't taking your proposal seriously. Correct me if I'm wrong, fellow Delegates, but in order to gain our approval, you have to first gain our respect. I, for one, find it very difficult to respect someone who doesn't take the time to properly communicate to me exactly what it is that they would like me to approve.


*Madame President is of the race known as Etherials, as are most of those who reside in her homeland of Intellect and the Arts.

Ok, we get the tirade, but there are a few things I'd like to point out here.



I think we all agree that parents have the obligation to teach children not to commit violent acts. The point here would not be to shift this job to the government. If this proposal is to be about what you have suggested it will be about, it would be dealing specifically with the situation in which parents have failed to instill in their children that violence is wrong. You'll notice this happens to be the exact situation under which you, yourself, have stated the government "must" take action.



Here I would like to point out that guns are not the only weapons to which this thread refers. I know, you used the word "weapon" in your post, but it is quite obvious from this section, as well as the rest of your post, that guns are the only weapon about which you appear to be concerned. Guns are not the only weapons in existance, and therefore not the only problem being discussed here.



Is it just me, or does it sound like you're building up to something irrelevant to the thread here?



This is beginning to have a familiar ring to it, although I can't quite place it...

*cough*NRA motto*cough*



And at last you reveal your true colors. First, I'd like to say that your idea of "prison labor camp" is not only illegal considering its fairly obvious violation of the NSUN's anti-slavery laws, but it is also highly offensive due to its parallels to the treatment of certain individuals during the second world war. Second, as Libertarian as I am, I cannot allow myself to not come down heavily on you for posting this here. My reason? You're peddling your own proposal idea within someone else's proposal thread. Not only that, but your proposal most likely isn't even relevant to theirs. If you want to promote your idea, that's fine, but START YOUR OWN THREAD. Don't hijack someone else's.

Not necisarily, by forcing labor camps this implies that the govenrment has taken actuall measures to stop what is percieved as a problem. Personaly I hold no grudge or dislike for killers no matter what the age, call me old fashioned but the way you do something is far more important than the general action.To kill someone with a longe ranged weapon without just cause { eg. war, member of swat team, etc. etc.} is a pathetic show of cowardice punishable with death by hanging, to challenge someone with a melee weapon on the other hand is quite a different matter in its own right. Now to your speak of reference to the ww2 death camps, well in truth they are quite different because in one they were targeting members of a specific ethnicity purely because of hate whil in this instance it targets everyone with a problem no matter their race, religion, etc. Will this work? yes for the most part but before you say anything about people getting thrown in wrongly well guess what? that's the too Dam bad factor and it is always there no matter what you do it will be there to some extent and is purely reliant on the ineptness of individuals to follow the system not the process itself, thus your argument and opinion seem to be mis-lead or flawed and the un well, who really is to say that others should decide the way one runs their life? what self centered, sanctimonious, fool honestly believes that people should be told what to do by others without any form of support from the one they attempt to control? In the end you are held with less regard than the people we try to stop. :p

I would like to take this moment to point out how incredibly stupid it is to post what you have said about the UN WITHIN THE BLOODY UN FORUM!!! That being done, I believe I speak for nearly all of us when I say


:mp5:


Now get out. Please. Your attitude is utterly unwelcome.

In addition, having done a bit of research on you, I have an important question to ask:

If you hate the UN and its principles so much, why in all the hells did you join the UN????????????????

quite simply, it was to reform misguided liberal individuals of their self destructive habits. left=:headbang:
right=:cool:

So in order to right what you consider to be a wrong, you become what you despise that you might use it to perform the very act you loathe, thus perverting all that you stand for in word by, in action, standing against it? Sir or Madame, you would take this democracy and make it a dictatorship with yourself at the chair that all may be made right by your hand, and you alone call right! In addition, you have stated that use of a snipe is a weakly way, and so call yourself coward for " :sniper: " you have done!

"How can you say, that it's better this way, that this war we have lived we have won, for it appears to me, from what I hear and see, that which we fought we have become."
- Ileia, in a song written about the French Revolution

I say it's good, more government meddling, more MORE I TELL YOU!!!!

I am quite confused as to how I have sniped anything, but as far as becoming the thing you hate well to truly believe in something you must be willing to turn against it. If the un {the real one} is corrupt then should diplomacy ensue no! but it will, if a dictator takes your country shall you attempt to reason with them? yes possibly but to no avail. In the end one must turn to the weapons of their foes in order to right the wrongs in their own beliefs or systems. I do have an idea on how to spread the balance of power and to allow people to do things which they are best suited for and it is placed in the most efficient system, a triumvirate


1)Civil rights + other laws 2) Buisiness laws and accountablitlity 3)war

Th first would be in charge of all general laws and rights, the second would be responsible for the buisiness laws, and civil suites, and the 3rd well they would be in charge of ;military, police, and legal system. Of course these would all have seperate divisions like senate, house, etc. and would need the approval of 2/3 leaders to pass major national legislation such as going to war etc. by doing this those whom are knowledgable in one area may utilise their skills without being forced to blunder in things they do not understand.

quite simply, it was to reform misguided liberal individuals of their self destructive habits. left=:headbang: right=:cool:

Not to argue with such a well thought out arguement, but......


Liberals ended slavery in this country.
Liberals got women the right to vote.
Liberals got african americans the right to vote
Liberals created social security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty
Liberals ended segregation.
Liberals passed the civil rights act, the voting rights act.
Liberals created medicare.
Liberals passed the clean air act, the clean water act.

And what did conservatives do? They opposed everyone of those.

k.
so do you agree with what i am proposing.

Not to argue with such a well thought out arguement, but......
yes but what were liberals before they did all that conservatives. lol just kidding but they were ordinary people and someone showed them the way.

so do you agree with what i am proposing.

Ok - what the hell are you proposing? Aside from your first post, which doesn't make a lot of sense and lacks coherence (no offence intended) what is it you are trying to do? Stop kids using guns? Stop people shooting kids?

Do you have a proposal you have submitted? If so could you post a copy here.

Or are you thinking of submitting a proposal? And if so could you post a draft here?

Or do you just have some vague thoughts, if so could you post them here so we can see them.

Because honestly - I have no idea what the hell you are proposing, and that does kind of have an impact on whether or not I can support it :}

I would like to say stop the violece with kids and weapons we need strong governments.
Step 1. Become coherent.
Step 2. You need to realize that we do not need a strong government, we need strong nations.
Step 3. You need to realize that the NRA is right; guns don't kill people. Neither do knives, clubs, pencils, spoons, forks, chairs, old computer hard disk drives, arsenic, or arrows. The truth is that anything made by man can be weapon. Even pillows.
Step 4. You need to realize that any person who commits a crime is a criminal. Not the developers of a violent game, not the writer of a violent song, but the person who actually commits a crime. Attempting to censor games, television, music, or text is a gross violation of human rights.

Step 3. You need to realize that the NRA is right; guns don't kill people.
whilst guns, being left alone, dont kill people, they can be used by unstable people to kill people. whilst the old addage of 'you still need someone to pull the trigger' maybe true, you need to remember that there are a lot of 'someone's out there willing to do it

whilst guns, being left alone, dont kill people, they can be used by unstable people to kill people. whilst the old addage of 'you still need someone to pull the trigger' maybe true, you need to remember that there are a lot of 'someone's out there willing to do it

Even if guns were removed from the equation on the legal side, then only those who obtain them ilegally in the first place will wield them. Further, even if guns were removed completely, then what would stop criminalss from using knives, commercial crossbows, and other older, less efficient equipment?

Even if guns were removed from the equation on the legal side, then only those who obtain them ilegally in the first place will wield them. Further, even if guns were removed completely, then what would stop criminalss from using knives, commercial crossbows, and other older, less efficient equipment?
except for the crossbows, it is easier to defend against things like knives than against guns. by the way, i hate the old 'remove them and the other side will obtain them illegally' scare tactic. it is old and is just as bad as terrorism

by the way, i hate the old 'remove them and the other side will obtain them illegally' scare tactic. it is old and is just as bad as terrorism

You do not like it because it is true. Britain has outlawed guns, and since then, the rate of gun related crime has increased. If guns are outlawed, then how are these crimes being commited. Unless the nation in question can actually defend every citizen from crime, then the citizens should be allowed a way to defend themselves, with extreme consequences for abusing those rights.

You do not like it because it is true. Britain has outlawed guns, and since then, the rate of gun related crime has increased. If guns are outlawed, then how are these crimes being commited. Unless the nation in question can actually defend every citizen from crime, then the citizens should be allowed a way to defend themselves, with extreme consequences for abusing those rights.
OOC: i live in australia, so point out where the level of gun-related crime has risen here.... and oh yeah, dont get it confused with the violent crime statistics like everyone else does.

I would like to say stop the violece with kids and weapons we need strong governments.


With all the current UN resolutions protecting kids from being disiplined by anyone how can even a strong government stop them. They can't put bad minors in the mines to work they have to send them to school to anoy those who want to learn and become something. Nor can they draft them into military where they would be disiplined. Governments hands are tied by certain UN Resolutions that protect all kids. As most start getting into trouble before age 12 so check out current resolutions and get the ones protecting them repealed then let government do what it should to prevent violent kids.

Like this one:


UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #14
CHILD LABOR
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Santa Barbara
Description: GIVEN that many nation states see fit to employ children under age 12 in manual labor and industry,
GIVEN that these industries and labor are often highly detrimental to a child's body and health,
BELIEVING that it is a fundamental right to be given the chance to grow up educated and free from unneccesary disease, injury, and possible death from industrial work,
ASSERTING that it is immoral and atrocious to force children , by manipulation, authority or raw strength, to work for corporation or state,
Be it hereby resolved that the UN shall guarantee the rights of children to NOT work in any mines, factories, chemical plants or ANY OTHER industrial occupation; moreover, it shall be prohibited for a child to take up labor in such an occupation.

As it clearly prevents any government from dealing with kids that get violent.

OOC: i live in australia, so point out where the level of gun-related crime has risen here.... and oh yeah, dont get it confused with the violent crime statistics like everyone else does.


How can one get them confused with violent crime statistics.. If folks no longer have guns to kill with they use something else; thus this is still a violent crime only weapon of choice not a gun but maybe a wet noddle; that a dead person regardless of what killed them will never enjoy in a good soup..

The only way to stop crime is end the criminals ability to commit those crimes. Just locking them up for life only makes victums of citizens again as they end up paying to care for them for rest of their natural life.... Thus if they kill then hang them bury them be done with them...

The only way to stop crime is end the criminals ability to commit those crimes. Just locking them up for life only makes victums of citizens again as they end up paying to care for them for rest of their natural life.... Thus if they kill then hang them bury them be done with them...


*APPLAUSE*

Not to argue with such a well thought out arguement, but......


well, your little thing on the acts of liberals was quite amusing. 1 thing you forgot, slavery would have died out soon enough without starting a war that caused more grief and hostility than it settled. had the civil war never happened segregation would have been present yes but probabely not as strongly as it was because they would have been forced into themselves without moralistic, war mongering pre george bushes taking any form of action. then on to medicare, it is failing and you want to know how I have better knowledge of government programs than yourself? I am Canadian! we have had it for a long time and it bankrupts everything. then on to the civil rights stuff, to summarize my position on this, you can be racist thats fine with me just don't take any form of discrimination for jobs and such but if one is so affected by the words of another than they are pathetic and worse than the people insulting them and the rest I am more or less ok with but I do believe that women should be able to vote and work. Now lastly the environmental crap. people do what they want, don't try and mess with other peoples affairs unless it's thievery, murder, or rape aside from that you should be able to do what you want just don't destroy the life of another... oh and beatings etc. is bad too.

Liberals ended slavery in this country.
Liberals got women the right to vote.
Liberals got african americans the right to vote
Liberals created social security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty
Liberals ended segregation.
Liberals passed the civil rights act, the voting rights act.
Liberals created medicare.
Liberals passed the clean air act, the clean water act.

And what did conservatives do? They opposed everyone of those.

1. The process was begun by conservatives
2. Many conservatives at the time were southern women, and they also fought for suffrage. However, black women at the time were happy for freedom, and told "white" women that they should not attempt to speak for all women.
3. Read #1
4. Liberals abused social security in the subsequent decades, and are soley responsible for its current plight.
5. Liberals used the segregation issue to further their own political goals.
6. Read #5 again
7. Liberals squandered billions of dollars on an insufficient system.
8. Read #5 again

Liberals have few morals, and will do absolutly anything to further their own agenda's. They have proved this repeatedly over the past century or so. They spend money like it was going out of style, they gouge the rich for more and more money in the name of social inequality, when the programs the money goes to are insufficient and promote an unproductive lifestyle.

In short, U.S. liberals set a new record for politcal corruption and ineptitude.

Finnaly someone who can express true conservative values without sounding like an idiot! that is our one plight, we makeup the most intelegent and inept of the population. { communists excluded of course for lack of humanity}

oh yes and JFK was right, not like his scumbag brother.

You do not like it because it is true. Britain has outlawed guns, and since then, the rate of gun related crime has increased. If guns are outlawed, then how are these crimes being commited. Unless the nation in question can actually defend every citizen from crime, then the citizens should be allowed a way to defend themselves, with extreme consequences for abusing those rights.
Hmm... interesting...

But I can't accept the argument 'if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns'. The Port Arthur massacre showed the falsity of that statement.

Martin Bryant was mentally unstable, and could not possibly have secured a gun through the black market - he had no money, nor had he the patience. But he did have a rifle. He used it to kill 35 people, the world's worst ever massacre by a single gunman. If semi-automatic weapons had been illegal before then, then the massacre would not have happened. Yes, he might have killed some people with a smaller weapon, but nothing on the same scale.

In the wake of the massacre, automatic and semi-automatic weapons were banned in Australia. We haven't had an incident on anywhere near the same scale since.

Hmm... interesting...

But I can't accept the argument 'if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns'. The Port Arthur massacre showed the falsity of that statement.

Martin Bryant was mentally unstable, and could not possibly have secured a gun through the black market - he had no money, nor had he the patience. But he did have a rifle. He used it to kill 35 people, the world's worst ever massacre by a single gunman. If semi-automatic weapons had been illegal before then, then the massacre would not have happened. Yes, he might have killed some people with a smaller weapon, but nothing on the same scale.

In the wake of the massacre, automatic and semi-automatic weapons were banned in Australia. We haven't had an incident on anywhere near the same scale since.
that's what i was meaning before. but when did this turn into a RL political debate. this is the NSUN remember, and this topic has gone way off track

OOC:

I find that I can't debate this topic without referencing Port Arthur. Maninly because it makes a mockery of many of the main arguments used by those against gun bans.

Well, that's my excuse.

OOC:

I find that I can't debate this topic without referencing Port Arthur. Maninly because it makes a mockery of many of the main arguments used by those against gun bans.

Well, that's my excuse.
OOC: same here. they try and use statistical excuses (usually saying violent crime has risen in such-and-such a place), then we point out australia, and they shut up

OOC: Last time I checked, this wasn't the General forum. Could we please either make all this relevant to the UN or else let this thread die?

EDIT: The above is not to imply that good points are not being made, of course.

a mod could move this to the appropriate area and enable discussion to continue.

I still have no idea what the original poster is trying to do, by the way.

To stop influence of any kind

A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.
Category: Gun Control
Decision: Tighten
Proposed by: Jatalia

Description: I would like to stop parents influence of our youths theses influences are leadind to alot of crimes due to hatred and blatent dis regard to our youth of the world we need to stop making weapon persay to children and not let them get involved that means we need to crack down tighter on our security on weapons of any kind

Which turns out to be cross-category [gun control and [arguably] human rights: strong; whatever the first part about 'stopping parents' influence' is, it has no place in a gun control resolution] and has therefore been removed.

Which turns out to be cross-category [gun control and [arguably] human rights: strong; whatever the first part about 'stopping parents' influence' is, it has no place in a gun control resolution] and has therefore been removed.

Why thank you. At least now I know :} (And that also explains why I couldn't find it in the list when I looked!)

To stop influence of any kind

A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.
Category: Gun Control
Decision: Tighten
Proposed by: Jatalia

Description: I would like to stop parents influence of our youths theses influences are leadind to alot of crimes due to hatred and blatent dis regard to our youth of the world we need to stop making weapon persay to children and not let them get involved that means we need to crack down tighter on our security on weapons of any kind

Which turns out to be cross-category [gun control and [arguably] human rights: strong; whatever the first part about 'stopping parents' influence' is, it has no place in a gun control resolution] and has therefore been removed.
Actually, if we take this text and arrange it more into a more conventional draft we get something like this (still a little incoherenet but I believe disproving cross-category):LIKING to stop parents influence of our youths,

BELIEVING theses influences are leadind to alot of crimes due to hatred and blatent dis regard to our youth of the world,

1. DECLARES we need to stop making weapon persay to children and not let them get involved [in weapons?];

2. DECIDES that means we need to crack down tighter on our security on weapons of any kind .
Anyway, the "parent" clause is a preambulary clause, not an active clause which has an effect. It isn't trying to enact anything about parents, just using them as an argument to get support for gun control legislation. Since a justification for gun control (as horridly articulated of an argument as it might be) most certainly has a place in gun control proposals: I protest this proposal removal as itchy-trigger-fingeredness.

i apologise for following the trail labled "Off Topic"

<...>

Nope. Had it actually been worded like that, maybe, but you're just playing with semantics. The proposal reads:

I would like to stop parents influence of our youths

Goal A of this proposal: human rights: strong. Does not belong here. Has absolutely nothing to do with gun control. Strengthening gun control laws to prevent the sale of guns to minors actually increases parental control, since the parents have guns and the children do not.

theses influences are leadind to alot of crimes due to hatred and blatent dis regard to our youth of the world

Further reinforces that this proposal is aimed at stopping these 'influences' as they are cited as the cause of crimes due to their 'blatant disregard[ing] [of] [the] youth of the world.' This has no relevence whatsoever to the issue of gun control, since no attempt is made to explicitly tie one to the other. It's a non sequitur.

we need to stop making weapon persay to children and not let them get involved that means we need to crack down tighter on our security on weapons of any kind

'We need to stop making weapons [for sale?] to children and not let them get involved.' This appears to refer to being 'involved' in the 'influence' argument from earlier, since it's clearly stated this 'leads to crime.' Either way, taking something away from children doesn't decrease parental control of them, so the initial points are nonsense and the resolution contradicts itself, or the initial points are seperate and the resolution is double-category.

It also fails Hack's 'format' test by virtue of the fact that it's fairly difficult to figure out what it means at all. It'd need a serious rewrite, discussion and cleanup before it'd be acceptable.

It's all about peer pressure/respect whichever way you look at it!
Rid the Culture, Cure the Vulture!

....or you could just.....pop'a'cap'in'yo'ass!

It's a serious issue with serious consequences and individuals need to be strong about who they are and what's really important. It's only the sheep who feel that violence can make 'em feel tough!

Nope. Had it actually been worded like that, maybe, but you're just playing with semantics. Funny you should say "just playing with semantics" as 'semantics', a bastardized word to the layman, are the foundation upon which each human’s entire understanding is built. It's pretty important stuff, semantics--it separates Hitler from Mother Theresa. As much as the common man likes to think it's just political stuffery, it's very, very important--paradigm-shifting, even. So, that I'm "playing with semantics" I'll take as a compliment. :)

I would like to stop parents influence of our youths
Goal A of this proposal: human rights: strong. Does not belong here. Has absolutely nothing to do with gun control. Strengthening gun control laws to prevent the sale of guns to minors actually increases parental control, since the parents have guns and the children do not.
The way I see it, the precedent is that preambulary clauses are allowed to be on various subjects, as preambulary clauses have no effect. For example:All nations are advised that landmines are cruel and unnecessary devices to civilian populations of nations around the world.

These weapons indiscriminately maim and kill civilian targets.
This is an appeal to the human rights against such treatment--to justify the disarmament of landmines.

This affects and hurts everyone. For businesses, this is a huge loss in consumers. For education, it is a huge loss in potential scholars. For security, many of these people can be used to serve in law enforcement and the military. For both business and security, when medicines are not made accessible or affordable, black markets selling medicine arise. This resolution is Human Rights, yet these are appeals easily affecting international security and social justice (that governments should do this to make things equitable for businesses and "education"). REAFFIRMING the right to individual or collective self-defense recognized within United Nations implying that States have the right to acquire arms for defense;

REITERATING the importance of the right of self-determination of all peoples, especially under alien domination or foreign occupation;These refer to human rights (right to self-defense), and furtherment of democracy, respectively, yet the resolution is on International Security.

NOTING the unfortunate frequency of armed conflict in our world,This is the first clause. It has no obvious relationship to the resolution’s Social Justice category.

DECLARES, as a right for all, the opportunity to learn how to read and write in the official language(s) of a nation and extend this right to all citizens with in member nations;
This is clearly a declaration of human rights. Yet, it is in a Social Justice resolution.
AFFIRMING in accordance with the above mentioned resolution that each person has the right to decide over their own body, and has the right to sell ther body if they decide to, without government interference,
This preambulary clause is regarding the right of people to sell their bodies, yet the resolution is Free Trade.

CONVINCED the possession or use of such bioweapons by any UN or NON UN member nation presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of all nations and are unnecessary to national defense.This is an appeal to international security in a Global Disarmament resolution.

OBSERVING the neglect of the basic Human Right to sanitary water;
Again, this is explicitly a human rights clause in a social justice resolution.


Anyway, my point is that preambulary clauses "in different proposal categories" have long been ruled legal. So, the first clause being advocating a principle typically found under different proposal category is irrelevant. If anything you should delete the proposal as "not worthy of the UN's consideration" due to incoherence (as it didn't coherently connect its argument to its effects) rather that declaring a cross-category argument as illegal (which precedent seems to show it isn't). At least then you aren't implicitly re-writing the rules for preambulary clauses.

Funny you should say "just playing with semantics" as 'semantics', a bastardized word to the layman, are the foundation upon which each human’s entire understanding is built.

Yes, but playing around with definitions and meanings of words to cover an obviously flawed argument is nothing more than intellectual skullduggery.

Anyway, my point is that preambulary clauses "in different proposal categories" have long been ruled legal.

See the incoherence argument. It isn't presented adequately as a preambulary clause, therefore there's no pressing reason to suppose it is one. It also contradicts the subsequent statement; you can't remove 'influence' from parents by banning their children from having guns, it simply doesn't follow. You'll notice none of your examples directly contradict the rest of the resolution they're attached to.

Yes, but playing around with definitions and meanings of words to cover an obviously flawed argument is nothing more than intellectual skullduggery.
My argument’s the one that’s obviously flawed? Well, you see, I don't see my argument as "obviously flawed". Why is it your opinion of my argument as "obviously flawed" outweighs my opinion of it as "not obviously flawed" (and thus makes my defense of it disingenuous)?


See the incoherence argument.
What the editting you did to your post (without edit tags) quite a few minutes after you posted it. Sorry, I didn't have time to respond to that, I'd been in the respond window since five minutes (possibly) after you submitted your posts.
It isn't presented adequately as a preambulary clause, therefore there's no pressing reason to suppose it is one.
But, as not having any effect, that would be the only clause group that makes sense. And there is a pressing need to relegate it to one clause group or the other, given there are differing rules for each.It also contradicts the subsequent statement; you can't remove 'influence' from parents by banning their children from having guns, it simply doesn't follow.
You'll notice none of your examples directly contradict the rest of the resolution they're attached to.
Exactly. So it isn't "cross-caterogies", but "not worthy of consideration by the UN"...

I really hope you'll excuse me if I've been pushy (reading back it seems I have) with that seemingly unimportant point. It's just that the UN is beginning the yearly flood of school kids newly joining the game (which this proposer is likely a part of). It'll likely last form here to March or April, with a brief break during the Christmas-New Year's season. I'm just hoping they don't get confused with what one is and isn't allowed to do with a proposal text. Again, I'm sorry if I've been stand-offish.

But, as not having any effect, that would be the only clause group that makes sense. And there is a pressing need to relegate it to one clause group or the other, given there are differing rules for each.

But the problem is that, while if it's de-mangled and put in proper format [as you did] it can be said it should be preamble, the original resolution isn't divided into clauses or even sentences. Something that's basically four run-on sentences with no punctuation can't honestly be said to contain seperate clauses.

This is the flaw I was talking about: you can dress up the original to look like a proper proposal and say that the clauses you divide it into are this or that but the original proposal wasn't divided up at all and therefore won't be judged as if it was.